Army’s deep cuts
Chief Tango sends us a link from Stars & Stripes which reports that the Army is making even more cuts to the security of our nation by slashing 12 combat brigades from the force and slashing manpower by nearly 10%;
By reducing the number of headquarters and increasing the number of battalions per brigade, Odierno said the Army is “increasing our tooth to tail ratio.” He added that while there would be some civilian job losses, many civilian positions are in place to support the basic functions of a post, and won’t be affected.
Odierno said 10 BCTs would be cut from 10 Army installations: Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, N.C.; Fort Campbell, Ky.; Fort Carson, Colo.; Fort Drum, N.Y.; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Knox, Ky.; Fort Riley, Kan.; Fort Stewart, Ga.; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. Another two BCTs used for soldier training will also be cut, officials said.
An eleventh BCT in a location still undecided will be cut in the future, Odierno said.
So history is repeating itself, once again. Of course, we’ll have the reserve and Guard units to fill the holes, right? As long as the Guard and reserves don’t mind spending almost as much time in uniform as they would if they were active, then I suppose, retention and recruiting will suffer. Well, luckily, we can still depend on the draft, right? I’m sure no one would avoid the draft, despite the fact that the government has been largely unwilling to deal with draft dodgers and deserters in any meaningful manner.
And, oh, yeah, I’m sure the impact won’t be felt by communities who largely depend on military presence like Fort Drum & Jefferson County, NY. Although the defense issues are primary, the economy will also take a hit. I wonder if we can get the Constitution changed so we can get four more years out of this administration.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Big Army, Military issues
#46,
There is already an ASI: 1B, it’s on my ERB already. 🙂
#50,
Sadly, there are TWO full-time positions at the brigade level for SHARP representatives now. The SARC (E-7 or higher) and the Brigade Victim Advocate E-6/O-2 or higher). Also, the EO Advisor is a full-time E-7 position which is supposed to be “career enhancing”. I’ve heard talk of the SHARP course becoming something similar to DEOMI–a 90 day school which will be required for full-time personnel. I imagine the two-week course will be continued for collateral duty Victim Advocates, much like the EO Leader’s course is shorter than the EOA one.
As an evil SHARP representative, I’ll be the first to admit that throwing money at the problem isn’t going to make it disappear. While the Army downsizes, the number of personnel in staff positions (to include EO and SHARP) is increasing. The next thing you know, there will be Anti-Hazing Advisors, Homosexual/Transgender Relations Specialists, Female Integration Coordinators, Alpha Male Emasculation Teams, and other made-up positions at the brigade and/or battalion level. All will be filled by E-7s who are either looking to punch their ticket for E-8 or who are unfit for the line.
#43 Al T
Oops. You’re right. My brain gap spasm. Sorry.
I’ll try not to let it happen again.
Great, the Hollow Force again… at least there’s no Disco this time.
There’s been talk of reflagging 4th BDE at Fort Stewart to 3rd BDE (currently at Benning). I also heard talk of 4th BDE 10th Mountain moving from Polk to Drum. This article lays out the proposed unit BCT cuts, though, and it doesn’t look like those units are going anywhere: http://theadvocate.com/home/6347563-125/fort-polk-cuts-not-as
Fort Stewart has a nice new 4th BDE compound (at the end of Old Sunbury road along GA-144 for those of you are familiar with Stewart) that was opened just before I got there. It sucks having to drive through the gates to get to main post and back, but the compound is pretty nice and there is even a newly opened (as of November last year) Shoppette which for some reason was placed outside of the gated area. Civilians love being turned away when they try to buy beer or cigarettes. Similarly, Fort Campbell built up a nice area to support their 4th BDE after they were stood up in 2004. From what I remember, the DISCOM barracks (which were new when I got there in 2002) became the basis of the 4th BDE compound, and it is at least on main post.
The “transformation” that took place nine years ago virtually mandated that most installations build up to support an additional brigade. Once 2nd BDE is gone from Stewart, main post will have two almost empty barracks and brigade areas, leaving only 1/3 on main post and 4/3 in our area. Those “old” brigade areas are by no means condemned, SFAIK, and it seems like a shame that so many millions of dollars have been spent to beef up infrastructure to support what turned out to be a temporary restructure of our forces.
Also, I wonder how much longer we (4/3) will stay “light”. Given the historically mechanized structure of 3ID, and the pending cuts which will leave the division with two mech brigades–one each at Benning and Stewart–I won’t be surprised if we inherit the Bradleys and Abrams from 2/3. I’ve spent a total of maybe twenty minutes in a Bradley during my career so far (an expedient assault on Smith Villa at JRTC in 2002 and a familiarization ride with 3rd ACR in Husaybah in 2003), but I’m open to learning new things.
@51,
Alpha Male Emasculation Teams. LMAO! Don’t say it too loud though. The internets has ears. Someone may overhear it and make it a reality.
@54, you would not believe the nice things we built in the 80s and then abandoned in the 90’s during the drawdown, esp. overseas in Germany and the ROK. BRAC also comes to mind, although that process did close some places that needed shuttering.
I’ve been reading the comments and while I understand that it seems these cuts may look good, I believe we are cutting in the wrong place. Yeah, there are commands that are only there for career officers to go and punch their ticket, and they should cut some of that off. We’ve been down this road before, only to find that we need to then spend a whole bunch more money rebuilding what someone else felt we didin’t need. Plus, BRAC closed down enough installations that we are now calling everything “joint base”. The big thing is what has been said by Jonn; are we to rely on the Reserves and Guard to carry the load from now on? That wasn’t their mission, but it seems that it will now become their mission and I believe recruitment and retention will suffer.
This is absolutely insane….
Ft. Drum wont suffer really anything. It was building to bring a Bde. from Polk to Drum so they now have all this new construction done
@41: Nobody is talking about eliminating the military, but why keep a force structure that was designed to fight two active wars when we’re down to zero after 2014? The fact that there may be other ways to save money is irrelevant to the discussion, because that’s the argument that every single bureacracy, ever, has always used to try and avoid cuts.
It comes down to this: People say “We need to cut the budget! But don’t cut my pet program, cut that guy’s program over there! That’s useless.”
And of course “that guy over there” is pointing at your program and saying the exact same thing.
Yes, we drew down before. And yes, the people in the military screamed bloody murder that it would make our forces impotent. And it didn’t.
Anyone who has served in the military knows there’s a lot of dead wood in the force structure. Whether or not this drawdown cuts the dead wood, again, misses the point: The drawdown is neccessary and it has to start somewhere.
My only objection to the drawdown would be if, as in the 90’s, the op-tempo started going up as forces were being cut. When Clinton started committing the military to be the “meals on wheels” or “security guards r us” force for every third world shithole out there, while at the same time cutting force size, that pissed me off. But at least for now it doesn’t seem that Obama is doing that.
@61: “But at least for now it doesn’t seem that Obama is doing that.”
Are you forgeting about Syria?
Since the last drawdown, we haven’t built up the forces to the pre-drawdown level. Not even close. What we did do is put more on the Reserves and National Guard. Is that what you want? If so, just say it, because then you will have issues with recruiting and retention in those ranks. No one is missing the point. The point is; if you’re going to cut one area, then make it across the board cuts so that everyone has skin in the game. They aren’t doing that and have fallen back on the red headed step child, once again. There’s a lot of waste and bloated budgets in ALL areas of government, but they aren’t talking about those. Where are we going to draw the manpower from when we get into another situation where we need to start pulling triggers, again? There are no absolutes, but an effective fighting force to protect our citizens and interests around the world is one thing the government is required to do per the Constitution. If we don’t want to do that, because of political and financial expediency, then what the hell do we even have a military for?
Also; let’s really look at the DoD budget, which is ~17% of the total budget. The total budget isn’t going to decrease because of the military cuts, that money is going to be shifted to social services. IOW more for the welfare state. So; why are people all for slashing the military budget some more? Why aren’t those same people leading the charge to slash other areas of the budget (btw, social services is 3 times the DoD budget)?
Get back to me when all that is taking place. I’ll be over here in the corner counting all the money we’re going to be saving from slashing the DoD budget.
@62: So how many troops do we have in Syria? I’m pretty sure the number is somewhere around zero.
I realize that around here there are knee-jerk reactions to oppose anything Obama does, and similar reactions to any cutting in the DoD, and this issue obviously hits both of those sore points.
But anybody who didn’t think the military was going to get cut once we started withdrawing from Afghanistan hasn’t been paying attention. Given that the size of the Army was built up for both Iraq and Afghanistan, it only makes sense for it to shrink as we leave both of those conflicts behind.
Those of us who served in the Reagan and Bush eras when the military got whatever they wanted on a silver platter need to understand that those years were a historical anomaly – With the exception of the civil war, the two world wars, and the cold war period, the military has always been the red headed stepchild of the government.
Sounds like the Flag Officer/O6 Kevlar rice bowls have been protected.
What a surprise.
National Guard units will receive the worn gear from the inactivated Regular forces. Guard and Reserve will be required to do everything with nothing. Unit Status Reports will be manipulated to reflect false levels of readiness.
Been there. Done that. Got the crippled knees.
martinjmpr: we don’t have any publicly-acknowledged troops in Syria at present (and I don’t have a clue if we have any folks of any type there at all). However, I believe we do have a fair number of folks in Jordan. As I recall, they’re there for planning/contingency/ADVON purposes in the event Syria goes to hell – or the POTUS orders us to get involved.
We also seemed very willing to support the Libyan rebels with military force a couple of years ago.
My point is that I wouldn’t give the current Administration a complete pass on “adventurism”. Libya is IMO one specific case in point, and Syria could well be another PDQ.
The current Administration might not have done as much regarding being “adventurous” yet as Clinton’s, but this administration has also involved in something Clinton’s wasn’t – e.g., a couple of no-joke shooting wars. They’ve also been in charge less than 5 years. As I recall, much of the Clinton administration’s “adventurism” occurred in their second term.
Didn’t we have a phony whose family said he was phony-killed in Syria last year or so? Doesn’t that count?
@64: I never said that we didn’t build up for Afghanistan/Iraq, however, I did say that we didn’t build up to the pre-drawdown levels prior to those conflicts, we just put more on the Reserves/Guard than ever before and that is what I was referring to. Don’t dance around the rest of the post; tell me what you think is such a good idea bout this, when no other dept. is cutting. As for Syria; it’s not that difficult to see that we have been putting forces in Jordan for the explicit reason to use Jordan for a launch in to Syria. Why did Reagan have to build up the military? Why did Bush? We are no where near the force strength we were in those salad days under Reagan, but then again, we don’t need to be with the end of the Cold War, but it would be nice to have an effective fighting force, poperly trained, motivated, and equipped, if the need arises; wouldn’t it?
“Don’t dance around the rest of the post; tell me what you think is such a good idea bout this, when no other dept. is cutting.”
Whether any other department is cutting is irrelevant. The issue is whether the size of the military is sufficient to complete the military’s mission. Why do we need the extra brigades that were added for Iraq/Afg after we’ve withdrawn from those conflicts? We don’t.
“Why did Reagan have to build up the military? Why did Bush? We are no where near the force strength we were in those salad days under Reagan, but then again, we don’t need to be with the end of the Cold War,”
Didn’t you just answer your own question? 😉 There’s nothing magical about an 18 division Army (which is what we had when I was in Germany in the late 80’s at the peak of the Reagan buildup.) It was the right number for the times but that doesn’t mean it’s the right number now.
” it would be nice to have an effective fighting force, poperly trained, motivated, and equipped, if the need arises; wouldn’t it?”
We don’t have that now? Who says? Other than the usual suspects who just want to bitch and moan about how great things were ‘back in the day’ and how awful they are now.
I first met one of those guys when I came in during the Carter years and I’ve met a battalion of them since. Their tune never changes: The Army used to be tough as nails, now they’re a bunch of pansies who couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag.
Somehow, no matter how degraded the military gets, we always seem to be able to rise to the occasion when duty calls.
martinjmpr: you’re making the underlying assumption the Clinton-era military was properly sized to defend the nation’s interests post-Cold War. It might or might not have been. It’s also possible we simply got lucky.
Conversely, it’s also possible that the US perceived weakness and lack of assertiveness due to said cuts was a primary contributor and/or root cause to our current troubles in the Arab world. If so, the Clinton era cuts are largely responsible for the troubles we have today.
We only have to cut it too fine once. Then the nation itself could end up history.
The worst and most expensive mistake a nation can make is to have a military that is not quite good enough. It’s also a mistake a nation generally doesn’t fully recover from.
Franklin possibly put it best: “Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.”
The two relevant questions when deciding what the role of government should be are 1) Does it absolutely have to be done and 2) can it be done more efficiently privately. The vast majority of things that our government does now either do not really need to be done or can be done more efficiently privately the very few exceptions to this are found among the enumerated powers in the Constitution (mostly-although there is nothing to say that a private post office could not be run more efficiently). Most of what the government does now are not to be found among those enumerated powers, but defense is (though there are doubtless ways to make cuts in the defense budget). We ought to cut those programs that are of questionable Constitutionality before defense, though I am not going to hold my breath.
@70: Do you seriously think there is a country out there that is an existential threat to the US? Who? China? The Chinese are much more interested in lending us money and selling us crap than they are in establishing some kind of hegemony over us. They have a hard time enough maintining their hegemony over China.
@71: It may be your opinion that some programs are more important than others, but the actual decisions on what will be cut and what will be funded are made by those we elect, which is exactly as it should be.
Elections have consequences and the American people have decided that democrats who don’t care much about defense issues are the ones they want running things. Old timers can complain about how “it ain’t like back in my day” but I doubt the electorate much cares, nor should they. What concerns them is the here-and-now, and the future.
If we cut forces now, will we regret it in the future? I don’t have a crystal ball and I’m guessing nobody here does either. Unfortunately it’s a fact of American history that we often have to get mugged by reality to see the error of our ways, but the US has always been like that.
martinjmpr-I think it is more a principle of limited government than “my opinion”. The Constitution exists to limit the powers of government because the founders (rightfully) feared concentrated power and in a democracy the abuse of power most commonly manifests itself as the “tyranny of the majority” (again, this is why the Constitution proscribes a certain set of limited government powers and guarantees certain rights). We have ignored this and ignore it now, to the detriment of our Republic.
#72 martinjmpr: Yes, the PRC is an existential threat. Currently they are waging a doctrinal war against the US on 2 fronts: economic and cyber. These fronts are doctrinal, not on-the-fly-poorly-thought-through operations that you’re used to seeing from the Pentagon.
Russia, too, is an existential threat. Putin is just piling on – it costs him less in cash and bodies while he rebuilds Russia’s capabilities.
There are non-state, and corporate actors that are also existential threats. Bringing up an old boogeyman, but George Soros DID collapse the economies of several nations for his profit, and used the money he made to make those countries, like the UK, over.
Just because Obama is the POTUS doesn’t mean that the governments of most of the rest of the world won’t hesitate to wholly destroy the US of A.
The Army is shrinking back down to its pre9/11 size while trying not to cut strength. Will they succeeded? I hope so but there seems to be some unexplained organizational oddities. Some thoughts.
Bragg will lose an Airborne Brigade, it certainly is going to be the 4th(508th) but the other RCT/Brigades will each regain their third pre9/11 maneuver battalion. Where does that leave the 173rd and the 4th/brigade of the 25th ID? They aren’t mentioned or their posts? I always assumed that one of those units would eventually be folded into the other(lets be honest the herd isn’t giving way) and likely an Airborne opfor battalion would go off status. The Army can only maintain 12-15 Airborne Infantry battalions to begin with.
Fort Campbell I’d surmise also its fourth Brigade(506th).
Forth Bliss has one light Infantry brigade, it will lose it. The Infantry battalions will be added to the two Mech brigades, giving them each one Armor and two Infantry battalions. The 1st Armor Division will have two Mech and one Stryker Brigade.
I don’t think Fort Carson has any Armor Brigades. Mech and light(one) yes but armor?
Fort Drum is losing a Brigade? Will the 10th Mountain keep it’s satellite brigade at Polk?
Fort Knox, only has one brigade and it’s going to lose it? What does that leave Knox with, Gold and the recruiting command(think Perscom has relocated there too)?
Fort Riley is also going to lose a Brigade? The 1st ID already lost its satellite Knox Brigade, which means the Division will only have two brigades and be at half strength?
I have been advocating three battalion brigades forever, when the Army expanded but went to a two battalion configuration(Stryker brigades still had three) was adapted, it disproportionately expanding HQ/Staff unnecessarily and denied every brigade commander a reserve.
@69: “Didn’t you just answer your own question? There’s nothing magical about an 18 division Army (which is what we had when I was in Germany in the late 80?s at the peak of the Reagan buildup.) It was the right number for the times but that doesn’t mean it’s the right number now.”
You’re, again, missing what I’m saying. We already had stripped down the military past the point of where it should have been, otherwise we wouldn’t have had to build up, again, for OEF/OIF. Of course, we didn’t really add that much, because, as I have said, we are putting more on the Reserves/Guard, so to say that we need to now dump more combat units, because everyone is getting along in the world is just dangerous. Also, Reserve/Guard units are doing a lot of the deployments, which means that when OEF is over, we won’t be sitting with a whole lot more personnel than what we started with and THAT’s what people aren’t getting.
And yes, the point is that other depts. need to be cut before looking more at the military. They’ve already done cuts to the military and are now looking for more.
So; are you in favor of putting more on the backs of the Reserve/Guard, or not? Yes or no. Do you think that by sttripping combat units we will be an effective fighting force for any future entanglements? Or, are we gonna have to go through the song and dance, once again, and spend much more money to build up than if we maintain our strength where it is.